Thread: What Sleep Paralysis Is, and Why You Don't 'Need' It to WILD

Read http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=67632 , Reply here to stay on topic

Your right, you don't "need" SP to WILD. But it usually occurs in a WILD attempt. So is that the purpose of this thread, or is it supposed to be a continuation of the other one?

All the argueing in that other thread seems to be over words and what, in this case, sleep paralysis actually means. My definition of sleep paralysis is simple, your body is paralyzed when IT (meaning your body) is asleep.

I don't think you can really avoid SP in attempting a WILD. Which is why I stick to DILD, because I hate SP - of course you don't need it but it's there, for the torment

The underlying problem in the thread appears to be disagreement over what "sleep paralysis" refers to.

Some in the thread think of sleep paralysis as being just that, paralyzed while asleep. This is what happens basically every night when you fall asleep.

Others refer to sleep paralysis as being the HI, sounds, and sensations you sometimes experience on your way to sleep. There is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence on the forums that these sensations are in no way required to WILD successfully.

We need clarification on the term. What exactly does "SP" refer to?

Originally Posted by Licity

The underlying problem in the thread appears to be disagreement over what "sleep paralysis" refers to.

Some in the thread think of sleep paralysis as being just that, paralyzed while asleep. This is what happens basically every night when you fall asleep.

Others refer to sleep paralysis as being the HI, sounds, and sensations you sometimes experience on your way to sleep. There is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence on the forums that these sensations are in no way required to WILD successfully.

We need clarification on the term. What exactly does "SP" refer to?

Precisely LaBerge used SP as a general term to refer to REM atonia, as well as the occurrence of muscle paralysis outside of REM sleep, the strange sensations of buzzing, vibrating, etc... but sleep paralysis (the Hag Phenomenon) is the paralysis of your body when you wake up from or just before sleep... it's called isolated sleep paralysis, it's considered a disorder! So it's got quite a misleading name to begin with, seeing as you are no longer asleep when you experience it (as opposed to REM atonia). Then there are the hallucinations that your partially-dreaming mind uses to explain the sensations, etc... sort of a byproduct, if you will, but most importantly, the experience of isolated sleep paralysis is considered a disorder; clearly if we are finding ways to 'induce' this it isn't really a strict disorder, I guess hence the dropping of "isolated" and the retention of "sleep paralysis" even in the absence of sleep. But sleep paralysis, by definition, is the experience of REM atonia. So unless you are trying to move your body and you try to get out of bed and you are paralyzed, you aren't experiencing sleep paralysis. If you experience the 'derivative symptoms' (*shrug*), you still aren't actually experiencing sleep paralysis. You're experiencing some weird buzzing and shit. Even when you hallucinate that there are witches and evil shit and your body is buzzing or falling out the wazoo, you still aren't experiencing sleep paralysis, you're just buzzing and hallucinating. I guess the big problem is that these SP derived symptoms don't have a name of their own, so SP is used to cover REM atonia (normally and naturally), sleep paralysis as a disorder, sleep paralysis as an induced state by keeping your mind awake intentionally while drifting asleep and then finding that you can't move your body (which requires that you try to move your body), as well as all the hallucinations and weird perceptions you get as you fall asleep and experience REM atonia setting in early. And, most notably, the onset of REM atonia is not something that you experience unless you are trying to physically move your body and finding yourself paralyzed. So unless during a WILD attempt you decide to get out of bed and dance but find that you can't, no one is actually experiencing sleep paralysis while WILDing. The atonia related perceptions may or may not be experienced during a WILD, but if you aren't finding your body to be paralyzed, you aren't experiencing SP.

I have a paper due in like 6 hours that I haven't started, so that's that for now. I have no idea what I said, please pick it apart!

can someone give me an estimate of how long it would take for sp to come about? like.. tried counting in your sleep? then how long it takes?

.. or is it bad to count at all?

Originally Posted by Shift

If you experience the 'derivative symptoms' (*shrug*), you still aren't actually experiencing sleep paralysis. You're experiencing some weird buzzing and shit.[/I]

I think you are on to something here, Shift. This is probably close to the source of all the confusion.

There are two kinds of sleep paralysis (in the sense of a disorder):

• Common sleep paralysis (CSP). This is the most common kind of SP. It means that you are in the awake state, you find you can't move, and you typically get scared. It lasts for a short time, and it usually occurs when waking up and rarely when falling asleep.
• Hallucinatory sleep paralysis (HSP), also known as hypnagogic sleep paralysis. This is rare and seems to be geographically episodic. The main difference between this and CSP is that it is also accompanied by hallucinations and can last for several minutes.

So maybe what happened was that some people started interpreting their perfectly normal hypnagogic hallucinations as symptoms of HSP, even though they hadn't experienced any kind of paralysis.

I can't believe we are right back to this same debate. It is not that difficult to answer this question, for yourself. Follow all the advice for a traditional WILD, and you can experience, firsthand, what happens to your consciousness as you pass through different phases of sleep. You can hold onto your awareness for several hours, or even the whole night if you try.

Thor, it is a little hypocritical that you claim to rely so heavily on science and peer reviewed research for your arguments, when in reality you are doing just the opposite. You are cherrypicking information and nitpicking semantics to try to make it fit exactly into your hypothesis so you don't have to admit you are wrong. This is terrible scientific methodology. Science is not argument or debating, it is discovery and truth seeking.

Originally Posted by Robot_Butler

I can't believe we are right back to this same debate. It is not that difficult to answer this question, for yourself. Follow all the advice for a traditional WILD, and you can experience, firsthand, what happens to your consciousness as you pass through different phases of sleep. You can hold onto your awareness for several hours, or even the whole night if you try.

I have no idea what you're trying to argue here. What I'm arguing is that the notion that vivid dreams occur only in REM is false.

Thor, it is a little hypocritical that you claim to rely so heavily on science and peer reviewed research for your arguments, when in reality you are doing just the opposite. You are cherrypicking information and nitpicking semantics to try to make it fit exactly into your hypothesis so you don't have to admit you are wrong. This is terrible scientific methodology. Science is not argument or debating, it is discovery and truth seeking.

I'm sorry, Butler, but you're wrong on every point. When you set out to educate other people on science, the first thing to do is actually having a clue what you're talking about, so you don't make a fool of yourself. The defining qualities of science are not "discovery and truth seeking". Man discovered things millions of years before he knew science, and other practices, like religion, also endeavor to seek the truth. Although science is motivated by the search for truth, the defining quality of science is the gathering of knowledge, consisting of theories and facts, by employing the scientific method. An objective, absolute truth is not knowable, neither through science nor any other way. However, what sets science apart from non-science, is that it works; scientific theories have greater predictive power than any alternative.

Since it is painfully clear that you don't have even the most elementary knowledge about science, you are not competent to judge the quality of any scientific methodology. Contrary to what you say, argument and debate are essential to the scientific process. In particular, what you're calling "cherrypicking" is actually a scientific principle called falsification. Given an hypothesis like "vivid dreams only occur in REM sleep", I only need to point out counterexamples, and that hypothesis is falsified. Decades worth of research has produced plenty of these counterexamples, so the claim that vivid dreams occur only in REM sleep has been very thoroughly falsified by now.

But both RB and Myself accept that vivid dreams can occour - to some degree - outside of REM. So you may now be arguing with no-one.

FYI RB's not making reference to that particular discussion. He's making reference to your previous assertions on SP during WILDs.

You know, were you stated that you didn't beleive that SP could be used to enter dreams, and several posters offered "counterexamples" which "falsified" your "hypothesis".

Hey, what do you think about the papers conclusion that atonia occours outside REM? Muscle atonia = rem atonia.
Interesting no?

Counting Sheep: The Science and pleasures of Sleep and Dreams. Paul Martin.

Do dreams occour only in rem sleep, or might we dream all night long? The Idea that dreaming is exclusively linked to REM Sleep has been overturned.
A lot depends however on what is meant by "dream". We tend to associate the word with bizzare and visually rich narrative dreams of REM sleep, in contrast to the more mundane thought processes of waking consciousness. When people are woken from NREM sleep and asked if they are dreaming , they reply yes only on about 7-8% for occasions. However, if instead they are asked wether they were thinking about anything, they say yes far more often. In fact people woken from NREM sleep report some form of mental activity on 40-60% of occasions.

The "dreams" that occour during NREM sleep are different. They are generally less vivid, less surreal, less unpleasant and less "dream-like" than classic dreams. They lack bizarre story lines, the strong emotions the strong emotions and intense imagery. In fact they are more like conventional waking thoughts or fragments of ideas. NREM dreams are also shorter and less complex than REM dreams".

There's three pages of scientific references to the chapter this text quotes.
Enough to satisfy THOR even.



It seems the answer to the OPs question is this:

It may be possible to have a Lucid dream outside of what we technically call REM sleep, in the brief transition periods between NREM and REM.

But generally NREM dreams are very different from REM dreams.

It may not be possible to have a "Lucid dream" as we understand it during NREM.
But it may be possible to be aware that your in NREM - in a meditative way - which might be described as a type of lucidity.

Originally Posted by Thor

Unless we want to hopelessly confuse the discussion, let's first distinguish between REM atonia and sleep paralysis, the former being natural and the latter being a sleep disorder.

If you are in sleep paralysis, you cannot possibly know that you have it before you have tried to move and failed. If you don't report the symptom, you don't have the disorder. It would be analogous to saying "I had a horrible headache; I didn't feel any pain at all, but I just know I had it."

If you're in REM atonia the experience is maximally internal, so you feel and control your dream body instead of your real body, hence no experience of REM atonia.

They haven't really described it. They have described their interpretation of an experience in which they assume they know when they are in REM atonia, when it is in fact highly unlikely that they can know this. Most likely they were not in REM at all, hence they were able to move just fine.

I've seen many people here on DV say things like: "be careful not to move, or you'll break SP." What kind of paralysis "breaks" when you try to move? None; it's a contradiction.



When you fall asleep there is loss of muscle tone. Yet you are fully able to move even though your movements will be sluggish. People turn and toss in their sleep all through the night, except of course when they are in REM sleep.

Originally Posted by Thor

I think you are on to something here, Shift. This is probably close to the source of all the confusion.

There are two kinds of sleep paralysis (in the sense of a disorder):

• Common sleep paralysis (CSP). This is the most common kind of SP. It means that you are in the awake state, you find you can't move, and you typically get scared. It lasts for a short time, and it usually occurs when waking up and rarely when falling asleep.
• Hallucinatory sleep paralysis (HSP), also known as hypnagogic sleep paralysis. This is rare and seems to be geographically episodic. The main difference between this and CSP is that it is also accompanied by hallucinations and can last for several minutes.

So maybe what happened was that some people started interpreting their perfectly normal hypnagogic hallucinations as symptoms of HSP, even though they hadn't experienced any kind of paralysis.

Originally Posted by Thor

I have no idea what you're trying to argue here. What I'm arguing is that the notion that vivid dreams occur only in REM is false.



I'm sorry, Butler, but you're wrong on every point. When you set out to educate other people on science, the first thing to do is actually having a clue what you're talking about, so you don't make a fool of yourself. The defining qualities of science are not "discovery and truth seeking". Man discovered things millions of years before he knew science, and other practices, like religion, also endeavor to seek the truth. Although science is motivated by the search for truth, the defining quality of science is the gathering of knowledge, consisting of theories and facts, by employing the scientific method. An objective, absolute truth is not knowable, neither through science nor any other way. However, what sets science apart from non-science, is that it works; scientific theories have greater predictive power than any alternative.

Since it is painfully clear that you don't have even the most elementary knowledge about science, you are not competent to judge the quality of any scientific methodology. Contrary to what you say, argument and debate are essential to the scientific process. In particular, what you're calling "cherrypicking" is actually a scientific principle called falsification. Given an hypothesis like "vivid dreams only occur in REM sleep", I only need to point out counterexamples, and that hypothesis is falsified. Decades worth of research has produced plenty of these counterexamples, so the claim that vivid dreams occur only in REM sleep has been very thoroughly falsified by now.

The problem in this thread is consistent with all of your posts, Thor; you simply need to source yourself. Give us some citations of where you get this information from. I have grown used to doing this myself and it works effectively to quell any problematic areas.

Please realize that you are simply subject to the accusation that you are simply making up this information without support. While this may likely not be the case, forum readers cannot empirically tell the difference. Fix that.

~

Originally Posted by moonshine

FYI RB's not making reference to that particular discussion. He's making reference to your previous assertions on SP during WILDs.

I was replying to the subject of this discussion. It was your choice to change the subject, not mine.

You know, were you stated that you didn't beleive that SP could be used to enter dreams, and several posters offered "counterexamples" which "falsified" your "hypothesis".

Hey, what do you think about the papers conclusion that atonia occours outside REM? Muscle atonia = rem atonia.
Interesting no?

Sleep paralysis is a sleep disorder where

1. motor activity is inhibited by blockade of neurons in the brainstem
2. the person is normally awake or at least not in REM sleep

I have said very clearly, on multiple occasions, that you can initiate a WILD from sleep paralysis, so please stop lying. Misrepresenting an opponent's position is called a straw man argument. This is one of the lowest and most disingenuous debating tactics, so either you are incapable of rational debate or you are simply dishonest.

What I have also said, and which is entirely consistent with the above as well as existing research, is that if you are not afflicted with the disorder sleep paralysis, there is no evidence that you can induce it at will. In order to falsify this, you would need to show that both points 1 and 2 above are present for subjects that are not afflicted with sleep paralysis.

You have cited the paper by Werth et al. to support your point, but it doesn't show point 1, because the method employed was to measure submental EMG, that is, they simply measured the muscle tension in the subject's chin, and then they set an arbitrary limit and called everything below that limit "atonia". Low muscle tension in the chin is not evidence of blockade of motor neurons in the brainstem.

Originally Posted by Thor

I was replying to the subject of this discussion. It was your choice to change the subject, not mine.

Oh rly? Well speaking of made up arguments, weren't you actually the one who brought up previous discussions.

Originally Posted by Thor

(Didn't we have this discussion last year?)

Yup!

Originally Posted by Thor

Sleep paralysis is a sleep disorder where

1. motor activity is inhibited by blockade of neurons in the brainstem
2. the person is normally awake or at least not in REM sleep

I have said very clearly, on multiple occasions, that you can initiate a WILD from sleep paralysis, so please stop lying. Misrepresenting an opponent's position is called a straw man argument. This is one of the lowest and most disingenuous debating tactics, so either you are incapable of rational debate or you are simply dishonest.

Speaking of straw men, please show me where I've lied? You're right, it is a very low and disingenuous tactic. You should be ashamed!

Heres what you did - in fact - say previously :

Originally Posted by Thor

Well, I actually did say that if you get sleep paralysis you can use it as a tool to initiate WILDs from.

So my position on this subject can be summed up as follows:

1. Sleep paralysis is neither necessary nor sufficient for WILDing.
2. The chances of getting sleep paralysis are determined by your natural predisposition to get it.
3. The chances of getting sleep paralysis are not affected by WILDing.

But I'd be willing to be convinced otherwise if someone could come up with credible evidence to support it.

i.e. you did not accept that WILDers can consciously enter sleep paralysis to enter a lucid dream.

Originally Posted by Thor

What I have also said, and which is entirely consistent with the above as well as existing research, is that if you are not afflicted with the disorder sleep paralysis, there is no evidence that you can induce it at will.

Carefully excluding, of course, the numerous personal testimonies of posters, like RB, who have managed to achieve exactly that.
I believe you decided this doesn't count.

Originally Posted by Thor

You have cited the paper by Werth et al. to support your point, but it doesn't show point 1, because the method employed was to measure submental EMG, that is, they simply measured the muscle tension in the subject's chin, and then they set an arbitrary limit and called everything below that limit "atonia". Low muscle tension in the chin is not evidence of blockade of motor neurons in the brainstem.

LOL. In your opinion Thor.

The Scientists who produced the peer reviewed heavily referenced scientific paper produced by scientists at a scientific institution seem quite clear. The muscle atonia they are refering to is the same in both REM and NREM.
It is no co-incidence that the U pattern they described ramped up, carried on through the REM period, then dropped down again.
It is no co-incidence that people woken at the start and end of NREM periods describe REM like dreams, but weren't running around the labs shouting "Keep the demons away from me, the chicken-horses need sustenance. Now unhand that soup".

Originally Posted by moonshine

Speaking of straw men, please show me where I've lied?

This is what I wrote in What Every Lucid Dreamer Should Know About Sleep Paralysis:

If you are one of the few people who get sleep paralysis as a disorder, you can know that although it may be scary, it's not in any way dangerous. And you can even turn it into an advantage by initiating WILDs from this state.

Then, earlier in this thread, you wrote:

You know, were you stated that you didn't beleive that SP could be used to enter dreams, and several posters offered "counterexamples" which "falsified" your "hypothesis".

Ergo, you claim that I said the exact opposite of what I did. There are only two possibilities here: either you are unable to comprehend simple sentences, or you are a liar.

Heres what you did - in fact - say previously :

Well, I actually did say that if you get sleep paralysis you can use it as a tool to initiate WILDs from.

So my position on this subject can be summed up as follows:

1. Sleep paralysis is neither necessary nor sufficient for WILDing.
2. The chances of getting sleep paralysis are determined by your natural predisposition to get it.
3. The chances of getting sleep paralysis are not affected by WILDing.

But I'd be willing to be convinced otherwise if someone could come up with credible evidence to support it.

i.e. you did not accept that WILDers can consciously enter sleep paralysis to enter a lucid dream.

Yes, that is what I said, and no one has so far offered any evidence to the contrary of any of these points. Besides, how do you interpret this as "you stated that you didn't beleive that SP could be used to enter dreams", when in fact I'm saying precisely that you can use SP to enter lucid dreams? Again, I'm forced to conclude that either you are unable to comprehend simple sentences, or you are a liar.

Carefully excluding, of course, the numerous personal testimonies of posters, like RB, who have managed to achieve exactly that.
I believe you decided this doesn't count.

That is correct; personal testimonies do not count. When you aspire to use science to support your claims, you play by the rules of science.

LOL. In your opinion Thor.

The Scientists who produced the peer reviewed heavily referenced scientific paper produced by scientists at a scientific institution seem quite clear. The muscle atonia they are refering to is the same in both REM and NREM.

I agree that the paper is quite clear; it just doesn't support what you think it does. The muscle atonia they are referring to is simply lack of muscle tension in the chin. There is normally least tension in REM and slightly more in NREM. However, EMG data alone does not prove blockade of motor neurons in the brainstem; that actually has to be measured.

It is no co-incidence that the U pattern they described ramped up, carried on through the REM period, then dropped down again.
It is no co-incidence that people woken at the start and end of NREM periods describe REM like dreams, but weren't running around the labs shouting "Keep the demons away from me, the chicken-horses need sustenance. Now unhand that soup".

Your assertions that these things are not coincidences prove nothing whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Thor

This is what I wrote in What Every Lucid Dreamer Should Know About Sleep Paralysis:

If you are one of the few people who get sleep paralysis as a disorder, you can know that although it may be scary, it's not in any way dangerous. And you can even turn it into an advantage by initiating WILDs from this state.

Then, earlier in this thread, you wrote:

You know, were you stated that you didn't beleive that SP could be used to enter dreams, and several posters offered "counterexamples" which "falsified" your "hypothesis".

Ergo, you claim that I said the exact opposite of what I did. There are only two possibilities here: either you are unable to comprehend simple sentences, or you are a liar.

The third possibility is that you're indulging a no small degree of selective dickish pedantry (colour me surprised). Kinda difficult to lie when the thread in question is a matter of record.

You've latched onto a single quote and are selling it out of context.
Here are the other related quotes.

Originally Posted by moonshine

(Best not to go into last years discussion - wasn't that when you were denying Sleep Paralysis could actually be used in WILD attempts?)

Originally Posted by moonshine

What, last year when you kept repeating that you didn't believe people were entering SP to WILD, despite numerous posters (now including me) describing how they were succesful in doing just that?

Or did you just choose to ignore them.
Your exact claim was that people could not deliberately induce SP to enter a Lucid Dream. i.e. a fairly typical WILD.
No surprise that you haven't gained a much support in that one.

Originally Posted by Thor

That is correct; personal testimonies do not count.

Says you. A lot of Science is based on observation Thor.

Originally Posted by Thor

I agree that the paper is quite clear; it just doesn't support what you think it does. The muscle atonia they are referring to is simply lack of muscle tension in the chin. There is normally least tension in REM and slightly more in NREM. However, EMG data alone does not prove blockade of motor neurons in the brainstem; that actually has to be measured.

So you keep saying.
Yet the scientists are quite clear. They are not differentiating between muscle atonia in REM or NREM.
They are measuring the same thing.

Originally Posted by Thor

Your assertions that these things are not coincidences prove nothing whatsoever.

The scientists disagree:-

In view of the U-shaped distribution of MAN (atonia) episodes it is unlikely that they are analogous events.

Come on thor, are you unable to comprehend simple sentences?

Originally Posted by moonshine

The third possibility is that you're indulging a no small degree of selective dickish pedantry (colour me surprised).

In earlier posts, I said this:

If you are one of the few people who get sleep paralysis as a disorder, you can know that although it may be scary, it's not in any way dangerous. And you can even turn it into an advantage by initiating WILDs from this state.

...and this:

Well, I actually did say that if you get sleep paralysis you can use it as a tool to initiate WILDs from.

So my position on this subject can be summed up as follows:

1. Sleep paralysis is neither necessary nor sufficient for WILDing.
2. The chances of getting sleep paralysis are determined by your natural predisposition to get it.
3. The chances of getting sleep paralysis are not affected by WILDing.

But I'd be willing to be convinced otherwise if someone could come up with credible evidence to support it.

Then you said this:

But both RB and Myself accept that vivid dreams can occour - to some degree - outside of REM. So you may now be arguing with no-one.

FYI RB's not making reference to that particular discussion. He's making reference to your previous assertions on SP during WILDs.

You know, were you stated that you didn't beleive that SP could be used to enter dreams, and several posters offered "counterexamples" which "falsified" your "hypothesis".

I quoted all the preceding paragraphs in your post, in order to show very clearly that this quote was not taken out of context.

Since you claimed that my statements on this subject were the exact contrary of what I actually said, there are only two logical possibilities here:

1. You are an illiterate, unable to comprehend the meaning of simple sentences.
2. You are a liar.

There is no third possibility. If you think there is a third possibility, you don't even understand simple logic either.

So which one is it, moonshine? Are you an illiterate or a liar?

Originally Posted by moonshine

There's three pages of scientific references to the chapter this text quotes.
Enough to satisfy THOR even.

As I said not long ago, you can't just list a bunch of references at the end. You actually need to reference each particular claim, and I don't see any references here.

What exactly is it you think this text proves? Since you seem incabable of understanding elementary properties of statistical distributions, please allow me to spoon feed it to you by using a simple example: May is generally colder than July, but it would be easy to find examples of many May days that were as warm as the average July day. I never said that NREM dreams are the same as REM dreams, just like I wouldn't claim that May is as warm as July. What I said was that there is a significant proportion of NREM dreams, occurring nowhere near REM sleep, that are as vivid and complex as typical REM dreams. The above book quotation notwithstanding, there are plenty of articles that confirm this.

Originally Posted by Thor

As I said not long ago, you can't just list a bunch of references at the end. You actually need to reference each particular claim, and I don't see any references here.

What are you banging on about Thor? Of course I can. As of course can the author of the original work. My sincere apologies for quoting from a popular science book written by a PHD and a Fellow of medicine. What was I thinking.

If you want an complete list of references, buy the book

Originally Posted by Thor

What exactly is it you think this text proves? Since you seem incabable of understanding elementary properties of statistical distributions, please allow me to spoon feed it to you by using a simple example: May is generally colder than July, but it would be easy to find examples of many May days that were as warm as the average July day. I never said that NREM dreams are the same as REM dreams, just like I wouldn't claim that May is as warm as July. What I said was that there is a significant proportion of NREM dreams, occurring nowhere near REM sleep, that are as vivid and complex as typical REM dreams. The above book quotation notwithstanding, there are plenty of articles that confirm this.

Although in point of fact it seems to be a relatively insignificant proportion of dreams, which probably co-incide with the transition period when Muscle (REM) atonia is kicking in at the start and end of NREM periods.

Originally Posted by moonshine

What are you banging on about Thor? Of course I can. As of course can the author of the original work. My sincere apologies for quoting from a popular science book written by a PHD and a Fellow of medicine. What was I thinking.

If you want an complete list of references, buy the book

A mere list of references is not sufficient by itself; each particular claim needs to be supported by at least one reference.

Although in point of fact it seems to be a relatively insignificant proportion of dreams, which probably co-incide with the transition period when Muscle (REM) atonia is kicking in at the start and end of NREM periods.

Some studies cite figures of 10-30%, while the more conservative studies cite 5-10%. This is very significant. And quite to the contrary of what you are saying, many of these dream reports were obtained nowhere near REM sleep. You can find the citations in note 11 of What Every Lucid Dreamer Should Know About Sleep Paralysis. In particular the NREM dream report quoted in that note was obtained 25 minutes after the last REM episode.

Originally Posted by Thor

A mere list of references is not sufficient by itself; each particular claim needs to be supported by at least one reference.

Yet again, says you.

But look.....
http://www.amazon.com/Counting-Sheep...0859417&sr=8-2

Dr Martin appears to have been able to publish an index of references at the back of the book without breaking the laws of space time and causing a chain reaction which destroys the universe.

Go figure

Originally Posted by moonshine

What are you banging on about Thor? Of course I can. As of course can the author of the original work. My sincere apologies for quoting from a popular science book written by a PHD and a Fellow of medicine. What was I thinking.

Simply relying on someone with a PhD and Fellows of Medicine is not enough to say that they are right. Even a Dr. is wrong on many occasions. You are failing to support your own support.

If you want an complete list of references, buy the book

Deliberate avoidance of justifying your own support. This is another way of saying, "I do not know what I am supporting, so go please read it for me."

Oh rly? Well speaking of made up arguments, weren't you actually the one who brought up previous discussions.

Pointing the finger in return of an accusation does not defend yourself. This is an illogical fallacy that you are imposing by defending yourself via attacking the accuser. Ad hominems are soon to follow along with other invalid arguments.

Speaking of straw men, please show me where I've lied? You're right, it is a very low and disingenuous tactic. You should be ashamed!

Heres what you did - in fact - say previously :

Notice the attempt to save face by attacking the accuser again. This is failing to justify your own statements again. Please learn to support your statements and justifications without relying on attacking others.

The third possibility is that you're indulging a no small degree of selective dickish pedantry (colour me surprised). Kinda difficult to lie when the thread in question is a matter of record.

I am curious to investigate this.

[quote]

Originally Posted by moonshine

Yet again, says you.

But look.....
http://www.amazon.com/Counting-Sheep...0859417&sr=8-2

Dr Martin appears to have been able to publish an index of references at the back of the book without breaking the laws of space time and causing a chain reaction which destroys the universe.

Go figure

Also, I can reference a chain of books, by PhD writers, who will quote completely unreliable sources. This point proves nothing but the laziness to declare your own arguments.

To investigate this thread further, I will look into Thor's posts next.

Please understand that forum thread debates are easy to digress as they take place over days and that you guys may very likely be running in circles. Try to re-state your original arguments in a more declarative style to help reconcile.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Simply relying on someone with a PhD and Fellows of Medicine is not enough to say that they are right. Even a Dr. is wrong on many occasions. You are failing to support your own support.

A fair point, as Thor clearly demonstrates. That said, theres a lot to be said for experience and expertise in a specific field, which is why I'm inclined to accept the conclusions of the scientists as opposed to Thors simplistic argument that conclusions don't stand unless they are presented in a way which is acceptable to Thor.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Deliberate avoidance of justifying your own support. This is another way of saying, "I do not know what I am supporting, so go please read it for me."

Not really. I've deliberately avoiding retyping numerous pages of related scientific references, for what I would hope are obvious reasons.
In relation to the section which I quoted, I provided the Author and Title of the book. Clearly, Insofar as I can, I've provided the source.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Pointing the finger in return of an accusation does not defend yourself. This is an illogical fallacy that you are imposing by defending yourself via attacking the accuser.

Incorrect. It was a fairly simple accusation. Thor stated that I had brought up the previous discussion. In reality Thor did. In any event this is a very minor point. I'd suggest its a bit embarassing for either of us to make too much out of it.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Ad hominems are soon to follow along with other invalid arguments.

Well that's the 'Net for you.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Notice the attempt to save face by attacking the accuser again. This is failing to justify your own statements again. Please learn to support your statements and justifications without relying on attacking others.

Can't say I agree. Having just essentially been branded a 'tard or a liar by the lofty Dr Thor, it is, in my view, perfectly reasonable to directly respond to the same.

In any event, I make no apologies for deliberately avoiding any in depth response to some of Thors pompous, and dare I say pointless, jargon laced critiques.

For example http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...2&postcount=50 which was essentially a pretentious argument about how to argue.

In addition, I admit it, simply ignoring the same pyrrhic effort gave me a small degree of satisfaction.

I would say that I have in fact been both supporting my statements and engaged in low level juvenile bickering.
And lets be clear, Thors propensity for big words makes him no less childish in his motivations.

And, in my case, your decision to focus solely on the bickering doesn't to justice to the case I've been making.
Hope we can sort that in future discussions.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am curious to investigate this.

Good to have you on board.

Originally Posted by moonshine

A fair point, as Thor clearly demonstrates. That said, theres a lot to be said for experience and expertise in a specific field, which is why I'm inclined to accept the conclusions of the scientists as opposed to Thors simplistic argument that conclusions don't stand unless they are presented in a way which is acceptable to Thor.

Please pay attention - I am only speaking to you in my post, not Thor. Please stop defending yourself by trying to attack others - it does nothing but make you look like an ass. I made a completely separate post for Thor to keep the sake of discussion going.

Not really. I've deliberately avoiding retyping numerous pages of related scientific references, for what I would hope are obvious reasons.
In relation to the section which I quoted, I provided the Author and Title of the book. Clearly, Insofar as I can, I've provided the source.

You have provided the source in an incredibly lazy fashion. This is parallel to me now saying, "please go read ethics for dummies" instead of elaborating my points.

You are not offering anything substantial or credible besides an arbitrary name and it is up to you to make specific references to why you cite those specific sources rather than simply randomly throw around book names and authors to try and defend yourself.

Otherwise, we would all just say, "I am right because Darwin wrote Origin of Species, oh and Dawkins wrote X" - this does nothing at all but rely too heavily on an illogical fallacy of authorship reliance.

Incorrect. It was a fairly simple accusation. Thor stated that I had brought up the previous discussion. In reality Thor did. In any event this is a very minor point. I'd suggest its a bit embarassing for either of us to make too much out of it.

You're still failing to justify your own point and again resort to attacking Thor instead of supporting the accusation to yourself. If the statement is wrong about yourself, it should be easy to clear up rather than resort to "YOU DID IT TOO" response.

Well that's the 'Net for you.

Either you misunderstood my point or you are using an ad hominem against me which, judging by your posting content, is typical. Please consider the fact that your social and debate skills will resort in the result of you feeling lonely and angry at the world rather than tempting to reconcile and consider that you might be wrong on a few things and that you can learn from others.

Can't say I agree. Having just essentially been branded a 'tard or a liar by the lofty Dr Thor, it is, in my view, perfectly reasonable to directly respond to the same.

That is a leading question that Thor did, yes, but this does not save your face. Please stop trying to defend yourself by attacking others, it's beginning to look desperate.

In any event, I make no apologies for deliberately avoiding any in depth response to some of Thors pompous, and dare I say pointless, jargon laced critiques.

You are still significantly failing at justifying yourself by attacking others. Your ad hominems do nothing but demonstrate your lacking perspicacity for logical and civil dispute.

For example http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...2&postcount=50 which was essentially a pretentious argument about how to argue.

My original point that you are responding to now is that you cannot justify yourself without attacking others and here you are sourcing a post by someone else beside yourself. You have illustrated your failure to adapt to debate ethics. Please consider adapting appropriate behaviour in debates or you may find yourself alone and still angry with the world thinking, "THEY'RE ALL IDIOTS AND DONT UNDERSTAND ME!"

In addition, I admit it, simply ignoring the same pyrrhic effort gave me a small degree of satisfaction.

I would say that I have in fact been both supporting my statements and engaged in low level juvenile bickering.
And lets be clear, Thors propensity for big words makes him no less childish in his motivations.

Actually, as I have shown, you have not been supporting your statements. You have been lazy and simply throwing around names without specific references or sources. When a paper is written about a topic, the sources are usually to specific pages not the entire book. This is just the same as saying, "I don't know, go read it yourself."

And, in my case, your decision to focus solely on the bickering doesn't to justice to the case I've been making.
Hope we can sort that in future discussions.

I could just instead lock the thread like most mod responses are, but I try and reconcile first. First by interjecting with my own critique and then resorting to PM's and then locking. I do not like ending the discussion - I know that you enjoy the debate, however "bad" it may be, and come back to read our responses and I like that! I like the discussion on here! The bickering is bad, and I'd like it to be civil and respectful.

However, if you want me to instead ignore the bickering and let it go on and on, I won't - I'd rather lock it. But what I most don't understand here is that your point in this quote is that I ought to, as a mod, not care about people bickering on the board??

Is this just an example of your taste for bitter dispute or am I missing something?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Try to re-state your original arguments in a more declarative style to help reconcile.

Alrighty then.

1) In Thors opinion the Term "Sleep Paralysis" can only be used with reference to the sleeping disorder. The majority of posters of DV understand the common meaning of "Sleep Paralysis", whether its a Colloquial term or not. Even if thor is technically correct (and the jury is still out on that) the term Sleep Paralysis (as used by laberge) will remain in common use amongst the lucid dreaming community

2) Thor states the Sleep paralysis is actually REM Atonia and can only take place in REM sleep. For this reason he has concluded that, outside of "Sleep Paralysis Disorder" there is no evidence that you can induce Sleep paralysis to WILD. His salient point seems to be that as you can only experience REM Atonia in REM sleep then you can't be experiencing REM atonia as you initiate a WILD.

This has been disputed and reference has been made to the significant records of anecdotal experience amongst the Lucid dreaming community. More on this later.

3) Further discussion has revealed that REM like dreams do indeed occur during a nominal period of NREM sleep (something which Thor actually initially pointed out). However, the majority of NREM dreams are more akin to thought dreams.

Now it makes sense that Sleep Paralysis isn't required during NREM as you're not inhabiting 3D virtual dream worlds and so will not run around the bedroom as you act out your dreams. But what of those REM like dreams.

Well the paper that I linked concludes that REM atonia actually occours outside of REM sleep (making the term Muscle Atonia more accurate). In point of fact it ramps up before REM sleep, and drops down after REM sleep. It makes logical sense that the REM like NREM dreams occour when Muscle Atonia is ramping up and down - therefore preventing you acting out the REM like dreams.

The paper concludes that

These findings indicate that a REM sleep episode is not sharply delimited but that it has antecedents during NREM sleep and that it vanishes gradually in the succeeding NREM sleep episode.

I would suggest that this makes sense to WILDers. WILD attempts are clearly not simple on/off physical/mental functions. A transition period is clearly observed.

In view of the U-shaped distribution of MAN (Muscle Atonia in NREM) episodes it is unlikely that they are analogous events.

THOR Insists the REM Atonia can ONLY occur in REM sleep - hence the name. Anything outwith REM atonia is dismissed by THOR as low muscle tone. But this seems to be a simple semantic stubborness.

In view of the U-shaped distribution of MAN (Muscle Atonia in NREM) episodes it is unlikely that they are analogous events.

The paper concludes that the U shaped curve clearly indicates that the ramping up and down of Muscle Atonia at either side of the REM period (Where REM atonia occours) is unlikely to be co-incidental. If we accept that REM Atonia (muscle atonia in REM) and MAN (Muscle Atonia in NREM) are similar physiological functions, the observations and theory holds together quite logically.